It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Open Question

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
Does anyone here think that knowing what he knows today, and given the opportunity to do it over again, would President Bush invade iraq?

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:35 PM
I am pretty sure he knew the same shyte back then as he knows now, and i am sure, if he was given a 'do over' he'd gladly send the troop over to Iraq. It's not like its his or his friends kids over there dying for the "war on terrorism"

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:07 PM
I think he would. He may do it differently, but I definitely think he (they) would. For the same reasons and with the same disregard for human life. His hindsight would only give him information as to how to do a better job. That's not to say the outcome would be any different, though...

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:59 PM
My guess would be YES Kim. Only because it would be a secret tribute to his Dad who didn't get the job done the FIRST TIME. Osama made a fool out of his Dad and I think this would be a huge incentive for him to dethrone Osama any way he could. Of course, the idiot needed to be dethroned and deballed... but that is for another topic.

Just one opinion.


posted on May, 30 2006 @ 07:09 PM
Dave, as a tribute to his dad? Hmmm. Well, maybe. But just yesterday, someone was telling me that Bush 43 has generally done things that undermine his dad's actions. Bush41, was at one time ambassador to China, and when his son campaigned for office, he often spoke harshly of China. And when he reached office, and one of our planes collided with a MIG, he talked tough with the Chinese right up to the point where he caved. Then when it came to Iraq he set out to finish what his old man obviously knew would be a grave mistake - screwing up Iraq. Bush41 was also once head of the CIA, and now his boy is messing that up. All this could be tribute and just sort of miscalculated, or maybe this is some sick, warped, Greek-styled drama playing out before our confounded eyes. If you ask me, which, of course, no one has, I would say that maybe the wrong brother got picked for the job. jeb was the one who was groomed for the slot. But then it went to Georgie. Anyway you slice it, it's got to stop!

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:57 AM
He definitly would. The story about WMD, whether he beleived it or not, wasn't the full rationale for the war. The war is part of the post-911 plan to re-organize the globe into a new order, to replace the dictatorships that are a consequence of colonialism and mandates with democratic republics. If not the globe then at least the middle east.

Along the way, the corporate scumbags that run about the world are going to use it to their advantage and make a hefty profit.

I see the US right now as similar to the Revolutionary Army of France. A popular army marching across the 'world' (europe at the time), knocking down dictatorships and kings and replaceing them with congresses, senates, and puppet princes, reorganizing the political borders along the way. The middle east recently looked like europe in the pre-revolutionary period. Hussein was a strongman dictator, the S'auds are a monarchy supported by the clergy, the ayatollah and iran are like the Papal States. And the whole region is disjointed, like the 'german' states. After the 'long war', the plan at least is to have it consolidated and liberalized, and thus pacified.

Of course, europe wasn't exactly peacable in the Napoleonic era!

Perhaps peopel shoudlnt' be comparing Bush to Hitler, but rather to little Nap eh?

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
I like that Bush Doctrine stuff. It's sort of weighty. The type of thing you read about in history books in school. As I recall, Paul Wolfowitz came up with the idea around the end of the Cold War. Old Paul there put it down on paper and passed it on to Dead-Eye Dick Cheney, who polished it up a bit in that out-of-the-side-of his-mouth sort of way, and then they both put their best foot forward and presented it to Bush41. Bush41 read it, sort of peering over the top of his reading glasses at the boys standing at attention in front of him, and probably thought to himself, "These boys are f___ing nuts," and then politely thanked them and tucked it way in the Not-To-Be-Opened-until-way-after-Christmas file, which is next to the "Area-54" file, and immediately proceeded to forget all about it.

But Dead-Eye Dick didn't forget about it. Neither did the Wolfman Paul. And after Dead-Eye Dick appointed himself the vice presidential candidate he dug it out, dusted it off, and showed it to Dubya, who, though he didn't quite get the whole jist of it, thought to himself: "The Bush Doctrine, it's named after me!" And there you go, the rest, sadly enough, is history.

The Bush doctrine is a kind of "might makes right" approach to international politics. A Catch-22 of our times: "We can do anything to you that you can't stop us from doing..." That is unless you're armed to teeth and willing to use them arms. Like North Korea, for instance, one third of the so-called "Axis of Evil." Even Dubya understands in his own downhome, brush clearing way that things could really get out of hand if he pushes North Korea a little too far. Heck, they could take out Seoul in one afternoon. And that's without their couple of nukes.

Which is what made Iraq a perfect target of opportunity. Saddam had already lost two wars. Iran and the Kuwait/First Gulf War. What could be easier than beating down the already defeated thug? Kick Saddam's butt again. This time for good. And demonstrate to the world that Bush, and the doctrine bearing his name, was a force, a righteous force, to be reckoned with.

But, unfortunately, what the Wolfman and Dead-Eye Dick left out of their equation was the vital element described by Clauswitz, in his treatise on the nature of war, as the "Idiot Factor." In theory, the Idiot Factor falls in-between the chapters on "The Failure to Plan" and "Surprise." Sun Tzu in The Art of War simply called it: "Screwing the Pooch." It's that part of reality where everything goes wrong according not to natural causes but through sheer stupidity...

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:16 PM
I don't think it was Pres. Bush II 's idea to go to war. What could he possibly know. With terms like "plausibe deniability" he would be at the mercy of his advisers for the "truth". Its like the tail wagging the dog. Not saying that Bush is a genius but he'd have to be a real idiot (with hind sight) to invade as was/is.

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:27 PM
In rethinking this a bit..... ONE WORD..... OIL!

There is NO QUESTION he would DO IT AGAIN!

Just one opinion.


posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:57 PM
I definitely think he would, cause he is the "The Decider" (Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)

I'm The Decider (Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)

I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when Dick shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...

Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong

I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo listen hear


Joking aside if not him, it would have been Kerry doing the same thing different flavor, same smell.

[edit on 10/6/2006 by Sauron]

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:23 PM
I ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE THIS for the Radio First Termer Iraq Show. PLEASE e-mail me the MP3 ASAP to send to my Producer Charlie Cooper for inclusion in our pre-production.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:42 AM
It was oh so the oil. If not we would be swarming Darfur now with Marines.
And that putz can't tie his shoe laces without index cards. Sprout is a mutton.

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:08 AM
Of course Bush would go after Iraq again the war was designed as a payback to his corporate buddy's. This is what was spouse to happen Saddam would be deposed a western style democracy would emerge overnight which would lead to the mass sell off of Iraq's assets to mostly US firms.

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:09 AM
Impotent is as impotent does. Life is like a box of texas oysters.

posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:09 PM
GWB has proven himself to be not much of a second-guesser. With the life he's led and the attitudes he displays, it's unlikely that he has much of a notion that he makes huge mistakes. Small errors in judgment, at the most.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:23 PM
Knowing what he knows now, and how much it has cost his country, it's my guess that he would have turned the country into fine glass from orbit before sending in troops.

But that's only my opinion of course.

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:45 PM
Knowing what he knows now???

What do you mean by that? Would you assume to know what he knows because that would be an ASSuption.

We each make up our own personalized reality. In your chair, or where ever you are, you percieve "the war in iraq" going "bad" or "good"...

Judging by your words you assume it's going "bad"...

Maybe the simplton really believes the war is going good. Maybe the simplton doesn't really care because he's only a puppet for people that manipulate simpletons in a family or party way.

Your perceptions and assumptions doesn't swey on the reality of "how things are going".

Personally, I knew we'd be here now back in 1988. From my perspective all this is written down long ago and is playing out. Look for Nostradamus's "The man who saw tomorrow". It came out in the 80s. Execpt for the use of the quartain that states 1999, the fortold events are playing out now and will be played out too soon.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:52 PM
Go read the Project for a New American Century's report on rebuilding americas defenses. Then Check out the names of those involved in the PNAC.

The war in Iraq was planned before Bush Jr. got into office, and would have been pulled off no matter who was elected.

It wasnt a choice of Georgie's.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
Does anyone here think that knowing what he knows today, and given the opportunity to do it over again, would President Bush invade iraq?

Yes he would. Regardless of public feelings, I think he believes things are going well there. Maybe they are? At any rate, yes, it was part of a plan, and ajenda, but not a consparicy. It was written in the sand and it is part of the sand castles being built before the great tide washes it away.

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:51 AM
I believe he would but use different tactics to get in there and different reasoning. He seems to have realized his choice turned out to be rather unpopular.

new topics

top topics


log in